As Mike is now apparently writing a third book, it becomes even more important that he understands how overwhelming the evidence is that the deployment of the 12 constables had nothing to do with Tumblety.

This is the complete text of a letter written by Sir Charles Warren to the Under Secretary of State at the Home Office dated 23rd October 1888. I should say that I incorrectly date this letter to 22nd October 1888 in my online article, which I will correct at the next opportunity, and the file reference in the National Archives is HO/9686/A48584 (not A484584 as the article has it):

"Sir,

With reference to your letter of the 5th ulto, A48584/10, I have to acquaint you for the information of the Secretary of State that I have directed the necessary enquiries to be made and have ascertained the particulars as to the number of trains which will arrive at Euston daily with passengers from America, and the hours of their arrival; and as two Police Constables must be present at each examination of luggage, I find it necessary to have three reliefs, thus requiring an augmentation of six Police Constables.

I have therefore to ask for authority for this increase. I should explain, however, that one of the three reliefs will be required to deal with passengers arriving during the night, and until the frequency of such arrivals has been tested only four Constables will be actually appointed under the authority now sought.

The Midland Railway Company will no doubt apply to have similar arrangements made at St Pancras Station, and this will necessitate my seeking a still further increase of six Constables for that duty.

The cost of the augmentation shall be chargeable to the Special Vote.

I am,

Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

[Signed: C. Warren]"

It will be noted that the Chief Commissioner is seeking authority for the deployment of 12 constables at the two London train stations BEFORE Tumblety has even been arrested.

Just out of curiosity and at the risk of appearing stupid (something that has never bothered me before ) do we know why Warren did request these officers?

Just out of curiosity and at the risk of appearing stupid (something that has never bothered me before ) do we know why Warren did request these officers?

Yes, we do Herlock. It all began some months earlier, well before the start of the Jack the Ripper murders.

This is from my now famous online article, "The English Detective":

"By way of background, the British Government, on 8 March 1884, had ordered that the baggage of all passengers arriving in the United Kingdom from foreign countries would be searched for dynamite or other explosives. This, inevitably, created inconvenience at customs for passengers arriving in the U.K, and, some four years later, on 22 March 1888, Richard Prowse, Secretary to the Board of Customs, wrote to the Home Secretary informing him that:
'...the Board of Customs have under consideration an application from the London and North Western Railway Company requesting that the Baggage of Passengers arriving at Liverpool from America and proceeding over the company's line to London may, if registered for London, be sent thither from Liverpool, in locked vans and undergo the requisite customs examination at the Euston Square terminus in London; and that there is reason to believe that an application to the same effect will be received from the Midland Railway company with respect to the Baggage of passengers from America who may come to London by that company's line to St Pancras terminus' (HO 45/9686/A48584).

The views of the Assistant Commissioner of the C.I.D. were sought on the railway company's application and, on 2 April 1888, James Monro, who did not like the idea, wrote to the Home Office saying:

'If it was considered necessary that police should be present at the examination of luggage, this could not be effected without employing a considerable number of constables' (HO 45/9686/A48584)."

This led to further correspondence which prompted Warren's letter of 23 October.

As Mike appears to be in the process of preparing another book I would like to identify one further (minor) correction which, in my view, could be made. I would like to stress, however, that I don't make any criticism of Mike for this, it's quite a complicated topic and this is quite a minor point.

What I would draw attention to is the statement in Mike's 2018 book that:

"A court date was set for November 20, 1888, and Hannay allowed bail at £ 300."

I don't believe it's correct to say that a court date was set for 20th November 1888.

Here is my thinking on the matter:

The Warrant of Committal for Tumblety on 14 November 1888 would have commanded the Keeper of Holloway Prison "to receive the said Accused into your custody in the said Prison, and there safely keep him till the next Court of Sessions of the Peace...".

When Tumblety took bail on 16 November, the condition endorsed on the Recognizance would have said, "The condition of the within written recognizance is such that the within bounden Francis Tumblety appears at the next Court of Sessions to be holden in and for the county of [London] and then surrender himself into custody, and plead to such indictment as may be found against him by the Grand Jury for or in respect of the charge aforesaid, and take his trial upon the same, and not depart the Court without leave, then the said recognizance shall be void but otherwise shall remain in full force".

Thus, the requirement was for Tumblety to appear at the Old Bailey at the next sessions (which commenced on 19 November 1888) and plead to the indictment found against him by the Grand Jury.

According to the Certificate of Indictment:

"on Monday the 19th day of November 1888 Francis Tumblety was and stands indicted for that he did unlawfully commit certain acts of gross indecency with certain male persons to wit with Albert Fisher, Arthur Brice, James Crowley and John Doughty and for indecently assaulting the same male persons. To which Indictment the said Francis Tumblety hath not appeared or pleaded."

My understanding of this is that, after the indictment by the Grand Jury, Tumblety (like all other prisoners), had he turned up, would have been arraigned en masse, and asked to plead. This would have happened on the first day of the Sessions, i.e. 19 November.

What I think happened is that, for whatever reason Tumblety, having not appeared, instructed his lawyers to issue an application on the morning of Monday 19 November for his trial to be adjourned, that application being returnable on Tuesday 20 November. By "returnable" that means the day the hearing of the adjournment application was due to be heard by the judge.

In other words, I don't think that Tumblety's trial was necessarily due to take place on 20 November and, in fact, as he had not pleaded, I'm sure that no such trial could have been scheduled. So I don't believe what happened is that the judge and barristers all turned up for the trial and, ooops, Tumblety wasn't there, so Archibald Bodkin made an application there and then on his feet to postpone the trial. I don't think it would have worked that way. The application, I think, would have been issued in advance in writing, or, at the very least, the judge would have been told in advance that Bodkin wanted to make an application on behalf of his client. I'm reasonably certain that this must have been on 19 November when the Grand Jury would have considered his case and indicted him. I don't think there was an option for Tumblety, or any other prisoner, not to show up on the Monday. To avoid consequences of such a no-show and to forestall any action against him, I think that the application must have been issued that day.

Tumblety's trial, I believe, could have taken place on any day within the sessions, on or after 19 November, it didn't necessary have to be on 20 November.